No trust in Creation...no trust in Genesis....no trust in Scriptures...

[Esanta]

Ask megaman which it is.

I don't need to. A second sentence verifies the contextual meaning of 'original' in his post.

Right, because believing the earth is billions of years old without question as you're told to do in the public education system is having original thoughts. All you do is repeat the thoughts of old earth believers.

'Original' in this sentence is meant to be 'present or existing from the very beginning', not 'created personally'. This is clearly evidenced when he says 'all you do is repeat the thoughts of old Earth believers', implying that he was saying 'your old Earth views are not of your own origin, but came before you'.

 

[Pottyone]

For a molecular cell biologist, you sure didn't have much to say on the subject of abiogenesis and related matters when they came up here. On your own thread.

You would agree then that an Ice Age occurring after Noah's Flood/Tower of Babel as depicted by some on this thread recently is highly improbable?

Hi Jack....if you look back to the original posting of this thread you will see that my reason for initiating the thread at all was more to do with the effects of picking and choosing which scriptures/ interpretation of scriptures, that this will have on the veracity of God's word as a whole and therefore the much more important issue of possibly misrepresenting The Lord and our need for salvation. How do you reconcile your view of scripture with Jesus's obvious references to a global flood during Noah's lifetime, resulting in the death of all those animals, and Noah's saving of a selection. Also how do we reconcile the aspect of death being a feature in an "old earth" prior to man's fall and sin's effect on creation. Christ obviously believed that his death would restore the earth back to its pre fall situation, where death would be no more.....the inference surely being that pre fall and sin, there was no death......

 

[Esanta]

Hi Jack....if you look back to the original posting of this thread you will see that my reason for initiating the thread at all was more to do with the effects of picking and choosing which scriptures/ interpretation of scriptures, that this will have on the veracity of God's word as a whole and therefore the much more important issue of possibly misrepresenting The Lord and our need for salvation. How do you reconcile your view of scripture with Jesus's obvious references to a global flood during Noah's lifetime, resulting in the death of all those animals, and Noah's saving of a selection. Also how do we reconcile the aspect of death being a feature in an "old earth" prior to man's fall and sin's effect on creation. Christ obviously believed that his death would restore the earth back to its pre fall situation, where death would be no more.....the inference surely being that pre fall and sin, there was no death......

With a translation of the bible that doesn't contradict the plainly available scientific evidence within the world God created.

 

[Elin]

With a translation of the bible that doesn't contradict the plainly available scientific evidence within the world God created.

Evidence is not proof.

There is no conclusive proof of what science claims contrary to Scripture.

The Bible itself understands the creation account to mean
six revolutions of the earth on its axis (Ex 20:11, 31:17; Heb 4:3-4).

Science has not conclusively proven otherwise.

 

[Esanta]

Evidence is not proof.

There is no conclusive proof of what science claims contrary to Scripture.

The Bible itself understands creation to have occurred in
six revolutions of the earth on its axis (Ex 20:11, 31:17; Heb 4:3-4).

Science has not conclusively proven otherwise.

Well, yes, it has Elin, based upon observations of the Earth we live in and how it works. But when you change the goalposts and consider the most vital 'evidence' to be a passed on folk-tale that's been seen many times before Judaism you become an impossible person to present genuine scientific evidence to.

There is absolutely not a single shred of doubt in my mind that Earth is older than 6,000 years old, none.

 

[Elin]

Evidence is not proof.

There is no conclusive proof of what science claims contrary to Scripture.

The Bible itself understands creation to have occurred in
six revolutions of the earth on its axis (Ex 20:11, 31:17; Heb 4:3-4).

Science has not conclusively proven otherwise.

Well, yes, it has Elin, based upon observations of the Earth we live in and how it works.

You left out the following assumptions on which these observations are based:

Exegetically, the word "yom" in Genesis is a literal 24 hour day. It is defined in Gen. 1:4-5 in terms of a light/dark cycle. It is further defined with the terms "evening and morning". It is modified with a number, thus first day, second day, ect. When the word "yom" is modified in this way, it almost always means a literal 24 hour day. In Gen. 1:14 it is defined literally in relation to heavenly bodies. Exodus 20:11 is the final nail in the coffin of those who would exegete millions of years from Genesis.

Jesus clearly stated that Scripture has authority over man's ideas and traditions (Mat. 15:1-9), and in Mark 10:6 clearly states that Adam and Eve were there in the beginning of God's creation, not after billions of years. Genesis is not allegorical literature. It is a historical narrative.

There are a couple of clear reasons for not reconciling "science" with the bible. To begin with, it is not necessary. The so called age of the universe is not "science". Since the origins of the Earth are not reproducible in a lab, being history, the relative ages of the earth and universe is not science, but a philosophical belief. The belief in uniformitarianism, cannot be proven scientifically, and there is considerable evidence, such as natural chronometers, radiohalos in rock formations, ect. which is inconsistent with this theory. Radiometric dating is based on presuppositions that are extremely biased against supernatural causes, and have been shown to be grossly in error in many cases.

Do not be deceived by the arguments that billions of years are "proven" by science, whereas a "young earth" belief is "religion". Both arguments come from philosophical beliefs that cannot be proven. (superdave5221, #71)

But when you change the goalposts and consider the most vital 'evidence' to be a passed on
folk-tale that's been seen many times before Judaism you become an impossible person to present genuine scientific evidence to.

So you think Adam didn't communicate to his descendants, long before Abraham,
what God revealed to him about creation. . .

There is absolutely not a single shred of doubt in my mind that Earth is older than 6,000 years old, none.

Unfortunately, true science is not based on one's convictions, but on conclusive proof, of which there is none which contradicts the Biblical record.

 

[Tintin]

Well, yes, it has Elin, based upon observations of the Earth we live in and how it works. But when you change the goalposts and consider the most vital 'evidence' to be a passed on folk-tale that's been seen many times before Judaism you become an impossible person to present genuine scientific evidence to.

There is absolutely not a single shred of doubt in my mind that Earth is older than 6,000 years old, none.

You've made your point quite clearly. You don't believe? You don't want to even listen to reason informed by God's Word (which we have and you don't). Then what is the freakin' point of you even posting here? Go elsewhere with your nonsense.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Well, yes, it has Elin, based upon observations of the Earth we live in and how it works. But when you change the goalposts and consider the most vital 'evidence' to be a passed on folk-tale that's been seen many times before Judaism you become an impossible person to present genuine scientific evidence to.

There is absolutely not a single shred of doubt in my mind that Earth is older than 6,000 years old, none.

IE. You have a closed mind, And thus have no desire to discuss anything, just force your opinion on everyone else.

So why are you here?

 

[psychomom]

EG, I just wanted to say I've missed you these last few days.

derailing over. please continue.

 

[Tintin]

EG, I just wanted to say I've missed you these last few days.

derailing over. please continue.

PsychoMom! You're back! Welcome, welcome! It's been too long. How are you, my sister?

 

[jag1977]

You've made your point quite clearly. You don't believe? You don't want to even listen to reason informed by God's Word (which we have and you don't). Then what is the freakin' point of you even posting here? Go elsewhere with your nonsense.

tinman/woman strikes again

 

[psychomom]

PsychoMom! You're back! Welcome, welcome! It's been too long. How are you, my sister?

aw, Tintin...thanks for that.
we're well, eagerly awaiting the birth of our first grandson in September. (huzzah!)
and you? how's school going this year?

 

[Tintin]

aw, Tintin...thanks for that.
we're well, eagerly awaiting the birth of our first grandson in September. (huzzah!)
and you? how's school going this year?

Congratulations! That's awesome news!
Teaching has been a little slow (I'm currently a relief teacher). I've also been doing some learning support volunteering at my local school. I'm also eagerly awaiting September. That's when Arlene comes to visit me for the first time! Bless you, sister.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

EG, I just wanted to say I've missed you these last few days.

derailing over. please continue.

Hey!! Psychomom! How have you been sis?

 

[psychomom]

EG!
had some ups and downs. (AKA life...lol)

i have to say, when i rejoined, i looked at a thread that was (IMHO) a buncha lies.
but, there was EG, speaking truth in the midst of it.
balm, pure balm.

 

[superdave5221]

superdave5221, would you mind explaining this post by you? I never would have noticed it, but Fishbait resurrected a thread from 3 years ago today so he could copy and paste some info from CMI.

It would appear that you agree with me regarding Noah’s Flood and the dinosaurs.

Is that correct?

Could you repeat that last sentence of yours please?


Re: Dinasarus!!!!!!!! IN book of Job too.
Originally Posted by Slepsog4
There is no 65 million years. The majority of what is in the fossil record is the result of the world wide flood of Noah.

superdave5221:

Do not deceive yourself. The flood did not create the fossil record, or the geological features that we have today. There is nothing in the bible that limits God as far as time.

The age-day theory is the closest that conforms well with the biblical record, as well as the geologic record. This corresponds with a term called "progressive creationism", in which God created the earth in a series of steps, in which the earth was prepared for human existence. Life was also created in this way, with the first of each of the "kinds" (Hebrew "min") being created (sometimes Heb. "bara", ex nihilo, such as the sea creatures, and sometimes "asah" made from preexisting materials), with the following members of that "kind" evolving (microevolution) to fit environmental conditions in different parts of the earth. Man was created "bara" spiritually, and then breathed by God into a body made "asah" from earth materials. The "hominids" and other creatures designated as "homo" in the taxonomy existing before "homo sapiens" are not human, but are animals only.

To discount geologic evidence as nonexistent, when it is, is bad theology, and creates unnecessary contention between the bible record and science.

Absolutely,

At the time that I wrote this I believed that what I was writing was true. I took Geology courses in college, including Paleontology, and I had a lot invested in my belief system that what the professors had told me was true.

A turning point came in many of my arguments on this site when Psychomom told me that I should not "think so hard", but instead listen to Holy Spirit and let Him teach me as I read the Bible. I took her advice, and a whole new world of knowledge has opened up to me. I realized that I was wrong, in many things, and I was willing to admit it. Although, at that time, I would not have been able to articulate it, my problem was my starting point. I was beginning with man's word, instead of with God's word. There is nothing wrong with using our intellect and logic to reason. These are gifts from God to help us cope with the world around us. But the starting point must be with God's word, not with man. When I started with God's word, without trying to make it fit with man's word, then the Truth swept over me, just as the floods swept over the continents caused by tectonic activity 4500 years ago.

Creation scientists are just as smart as secular scientists. It is not a matter of there being more evidence for one point of view over another. It is how the evidence is interpreted. When we begin with God's word, it is clear that the Bible indicates a young earth, and the evidence supports that. This is my position today, and I refute any previous position.

 

[Timeline]

Congratulations! That's awesome news!
Teaching has been a little slow (I'm currently a relief teacher). I've also been doing some learning support volunteering at my local school. I'm also eagerly awaiting September. That's when Arlene comes to visit me for the first time! Bless you, sister.

Hey!! Psychomom! How have you been sis?

EG!
had some ups and downs. (AKA life...lol)

i have to say, when i rejoined, i looked at a thread that was (IMHO) a buncha lies.
but, there was EG, speaking truth in the midst of it.
balm, pure balm.

Is this something that can't wait until after class?

 

[Tintin]

Is this something that can't wait until after class?

Nah, the thread was just Santa disagreeing with his reindeer anyway, so it's all good. I love discussing this stuff but you sometimes just have to let threads go when they're going nowhere, fast.

 

[psychomom]

Is this something that can't wait until after class?

i'm sorry. but you know....wimmin!
we just can't keep quiet!

 

[Fishbait]

And you thought that all up on your own?

Of course not. You copy and pasted most of it from the Answers in Genesis website.

I don't think any of you YECs have an original thought of your own. You copy and paste or paraphrase from YEC sites like Answers in Genesis.

Paul warned us about people that will come in the last days and would reject supernatural Christianity, especially literal creationism. Although these are widely diverse in structure and purpose, they all share one vital feature in common: They reject supernatural Christianity, especially literal creationism. Many liberal preachers give nominal allegiance to the teachings of Christ and the Bible, but they invariably deny the mighty power of God in special creation, as well as the great worldwide miracles of the Bible—the Flood, the dispersion, etc.

Included in Paul’s graphic description of the “perilous” characteristics of the “last days” (not the church age, since the prophesied last days were still future when he wrote of them in his last epistle, 2 Timothy 3:1-3) is this warning concerning the religious leaders of the last days. They would observe the outward form (church buildings, sacraments, religious services, etc.) of “godliness” (that is, “religion”), but would reject its supernatural aspects. They would desire the trappings of religious professionalism since they would be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God”.

Such specifications aptly describe the modern world of scientism and liberal theology, which pervades practically all religious denominations and overlaps with all kinds of liberal social movements (women’s liberation, gay rights, “New Age” pantheism, and others).

This prophecy is not given in Scripture simply as a matter of information. It contains a warning urgently needed by Bible-believing Christians who are under pressure today to compromise with humanistic liberals on this great doctrine of God’s creative power. Many have accepted the evolutionary system of “ages geology,” and this is tragic and dangerous. Instead of compromising with evolutionary naturalists and religious liberals, as many evangelicals today are inclined to do, Paul warns: “From such turn away!” HMM